G.R. No. L-15573; October 28, 1960
RELIANCE SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY INCORPORATED, petitioner, vs. LA CAMPANA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., MACARIO M. OFILADA CITY Sheriff of Manila, and the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

In Civil Case No. Q-2192, the Court of First Instance of Rizal rendered a decision on September 21, 1957, ordering defendants (including petitioner Reliance Surety and Insurance Company, Inc.) to pay plaintiff La Campana Food Products, Inc. jointly and severally: (a) P5,778.26 with legal interest; (b) attorney’s fees equivalent to 15% of the amount due; and (c) costs. The decision further provided that if Reliance Surety paid the obligation by virtue of its surety bond (which was for P5,000), the principal debtor and third-party defendants were to reimburse Reliance. A writ of execution was issued on March 25, 1958. Pursuant to this, Reliance Surety paid P5,000 on April 7, 1958. Since this payment did not cover the interest and attorney’s fees awarded, La Campana moved for an alias writ of execution for these amounts. Reliance Surety opposed this motion on June 8, 1958. The court, on October 16, 1958, overruled the opposition and granted the issuance of the alias writ. Reliance Surety’s motion for reconsideration was denied. It then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was denied. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court can review and nullify the order of the trial court granting the alias writ of execution for the payment of interest and attorney’s fees against the surety, on the ground that such liability exceeds the legal limit of the surety bond.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition. The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to decide the substantive question raised by the petitioner. The trial court’s decision had become final and executory long before the surety company objected. The decision was rendered on September 21, 1957, and the first writ of execution was issued on March 25, 1958. The surety company did not file its opposition to the alias writ until June 5, 1958. By this time, more than eight months had passed since the judgment. If the surety company wished to question the validity of the portions of the judgment ordering payment beyond the bond’s limit, it should have done so through the proper appellate remedies before the judgment became final and executory. A final and executory judgment can no longer be altered or modified. Costs were imposed against the petitioner.